Talk:Rock hyrax

Hyraceum
Last paragraph: "Cape Hyraxes produce large quantities of hyraceum (sticky mass of dung and urine) that has been employed by people in the treatment of several medical disorders, including epilepsy and convulsions."

Does smearing yourself with rabit dung actually treat brain problems, or is it just one of those superstitious things that people did before medical science?

The Voortrekkers used to take hyraceum scrapings and blow them through a reed into the throats of children with lung problems. In the early days of antibiotics, the hyraceum was also used as a source for penicillin production.

The traditional remedy therefore does appear to have some scientific basis, albeit very unconventional.

Damara: BOTH african community that uses Hyraceum as medicine AND name of medicine - coincidence?

 * The African community of Damara people use Hyraceum from Procavia capensis as medicine for women, especially for women with period pains, according to my mother who visited the Damara people in Namibia.
 * A medicine (baby pill) from medapharma that contains Desogestrel as active agent is also called Damara: http://www.medapharma.de/fileadmin/user_upload/DE/Gebrauchsinformationen/Damara_GI_07_2017.pdf ; https://www.fernarzt.com/produkt/damara/

This coincidence makes me wonder: Could it be that Hyraceum contains Desogestrel? I would be happy about an answer! Thank you in advance. C-Kobold (talk) 13:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Cape Hyraxes are found south of Syria, through North Africa and much of sub-Saharan Africa, Israel living in savanna or grassland areas.
This sentence needs some help. I'm not sure whether they live in the savanna or grasslands areas of all these places, or just Israel. Without knowing that, I don't know how to fix the sentence. I'm thinking "Cape Hyraxes are found in Israel, south of Syria, through North Africa and much of sub-Saharan Africa, (usually? Always?) living in savanna or grasslands areas."Lunch with Jason 13:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Closest Relative
In this article for Cape Hyrax, we say "Elephants (Proboscidea) and hyraxes (Hyracoidae) are both more closely related to manatees and dugongs (Sirenia) than they are to one another." But in the Hyrax article, we say "Recent morphological and molecular based classifications reveal the Sirenians to be the closest living relatives of elephants, while hyraxes are closely related but form an outgroup to the assemblage of elephants, sirenians, and extinct orders like Embrithopoda and Desmostylia." These seem inconsistent. In this article we suggest that the hyraxes are more closely related to manatees than to elephants. In the hyrax article we say that hyraxes are equally related to the manatees and elephants. Which is correct? My understanding is that the Hyrax article is more consistent with current thinking, in which case the Cape Hyrax article should be edited accordingly.Rlendog (talk) 14:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew
The rock badger's name in Hebrew literally translates to "mountain bunny."

No it doesn't (lol). The Hebrew shafan sela means "rock shafan" - and what does shafan mean? Good question, but probably "hyrax". Sorry, I should take that line out, especially since "bunny" isn't a scientific translation whichever way you look at it. Arikk (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Interested in the Biblical account...
Is the rock hyrax also known as a rock badger? As a herbivore, do they chew their own cud? Leviticus, in a certain English translation, mentions this animal and I'm wondering if it's the same one.

It looks more like a nutria than a North American badger.

Neil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.237.206 (talk) 03:39, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at least in some parts. From the OED: "rock badger n. chiefly S. Afr. = rock hyrax n."

Also in the OED "das"/"dasse": "1. a badger. Obs" (obsolete) and "2. The daman or rock-badger of the Cape". 86.186.185.129 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

NEW REWRITE: please comment
I've pretty much rewritten the page, putting things on a much more encyclopedic basis, and rationalising a lot of stuff that was scattered around the article. I'll leave it in my sandbox User:Arikk/Sandbox/Rock_Hyrax for a couple of days before replacing the existing page (although I think it's already much better), but if anyone wants to comment, please do so here or on my talk page. Arikk (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I've replaced the old page with my new version. Hope you like it. Arikk (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sunbathing Photo Matches Dartmoor Beast Photo!
It's an uncanny match imo, but make your own mind up [img]http://photos.forteantimes.com/images/front_picture_library_UK/dir_2/fortean_times_1225_7.jpg[/img] 195.59.118.105 (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Chewing the cud in Leviticus
The following sentences should not be mentioned under the Social behaviour-section, but be moved to a section of historical accounts in a similar manner as in the Hyrax article.

[the chewing/grunting behaviour] has been postulated as the origin of the misconception given in Leviticus 11:4-8 that the hyrax chews the cud.[4] But as the writer notes "the matter has not been fully resolved" and one zoologist writes of his observations of the rock hyrax chewing the cud.[4]

Then it has to be rewritten because it gives undue weight to a minority opinion, namely one apologetic author and some 19th century zoologist whose observations are unconfirmed. The hyrax is not a ruminant or a ruminating creature, and this is emphatically stated in a large number of zoological books, as one can find on the internet, e.g.:


 * 'Mammalogy: adaptation, diversity, ecology' By George A. Feldhamer (p. 376): "Although they do not ruminate, hyraxes have a unique digestive system involving one large cecum and a pair of ceca on the ascending column..."
 * Concise encyclopedia biology By Thomas Scott (p. 621): "[Hyraxes] are therefore able to efficiently digest fiber, but they do not ruminate. "
 * Horns, tusks, and flippers: the evolution of hoofed mammals By Donald R. Prothero, Robert M. Schoch (p. 150): "Hyraxes do not ruminate, but they have a unique complex gut with three areas for microbial digestion. "

So far from being "not fully resolved", the hyrax is very clearly established as a non-ruminant. How apologists wish to explain this discrepancy can of course be described, but not in a way that suggests a controversy on the scientific side of the matter. Fedor (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You have misread this paragraph.


 * 1) It clearly states that the biblical claim that the hyrax is a ruminant is a misconception.
 * 2) What "has not been fully resolved" is whether or not this chewing behaviour is the source of the biblical misconception.
 * Oh, and Natan Slifkin is hardly a 19th century zoologist. He's alive and well.
 * There's no biblical apologism going on here, just linking a peculiar and characteristic behaviour of the hyrax to observations dating back thousands of years. Arikk (talk) 22:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My issue is with the fact that when describing this issue, only one source is cited from someone who is not even a zoologist, but a theologist and who carefully tries to weigh the biblical claims against scientific claims. That is apologetic to me, even though the writer in question may be relatively moderate and unorthodox. The "19th century zoologist" that is being referred to is actually a conflation on my part of the 18th century traveler James Bruce and Dr. Hubert Hendrichs that cites him in 1962. The fact that these unconfirmed observations are mentioned in the wikipedia article is giving undue weight. Is there any argument against my proposed effort restructure the article to resolve this problem? Fedor (talk) 09:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear: The text is not stating clearly enough what the misconception is and what controversy is being referred to. It can be read in such a way as to mean that both the biblical and scientific views are equally valid, which would be giving undue weight. Fedor (talk) 10:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, making the statement clearer is most welcome. I don't think there can be any objection to that.  But remember that Wikipedia isn't a platform for promoting a scientific view as opposed to a biblical one - however much I (as a scientist) support the former.  The reconciliation of scientific fact with biblical criticism is a relevant historical and cultural process, and has a place here. Arikk (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not entirely making sense here. Wikipedia should state facts as facts and opinions as opinions. Generally, science generates facts and religion generates opinions. I have already stated clearly that religious views should be described as such, but only as opinion. I have no clear idea what you mean with 'promoting a scientific view as opposed to a biblical one'. If there are some biblical views at odds with the facts, and they are mentioned here, then it should clearly be stated that they are at odds. Then one can also describe the religious views on the matter and any apologetic attempts, but not in a way that would imply that these are on equal terms with scientific views and that there would be controversy on the matter. Fedor (talk) 09:05, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting discussion, and I'm happy to debate philosophy of science with you, although it doesn't necessarily improve the Rock Hyrax article. Science is science, and things that are not science are not science.  That's not identical to saying that science is fact and things that are not science are not fact.  Even if we take a strictly Popperian approach to the demarcation of science and pseudoscience (something that few modern scientists do, although it strikes me that it would appeal to your arguments), it is clear that what is not science still can have intrinsic value.  Take art, for example.  No one would deny that an important artistic representation of a hyrax might belong in this article, even if it inaccurately portrays certain anatomical features of the animal.  You might argue that a photograph presents "facts" and a painting only "opinions", but that does not mean that the two are "at odds".  Where I would agree with you is if there was a conflict between scientific and biblical views.  In such a case, it should be made clear that one is science and the other not. However, that's not the case here.  I'm going to be bold and attempt an edit to clarify the issue that disturbs you.  Please feel free to alter it if it doesn't address your concerns. Arikk (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Names
I'm interested when the Arabic name طبسون for hyrax comes from. Here, they're called الوبر. Is it two names for the same animal, or is one colloquial, or something like that? BTW, I removed the story of the Lebanese mountain as lacking in relevance. Arikk (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What is relevance of the Dutch name being mentioned? Dassie is the Afrikaans name for the rock hyrax. I will remove the sentence "The Dutch name is klipdas" until a reason for its purpose is established. -twigthe1st

Capitalization
In the "intro": Rock Hyrax Later, rock hyrax. Note: differences in capitalization. Whether bolded or not, capitalization must be consistent. What does the MoS suggest?

Image from this article to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Rock hyrax (Procavia capensis) 2.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on 2018-11-12. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-11-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2018 (UTC)